VMware, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 14, 20212020000612 (P.T.A.B. May. 14, 2021) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/178,324 06/09/2016 Fei Huang C493 3203 136237 7590 05/14/2021 Barta, Jones & Foley, P.C. (Patent Group - VMware) 3308 Preston Road #350-161 Plano, TX 75093 EXAMINER GHAFFARI, ABU Z ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2195 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/14/2021 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): docket@bjfip.com ipadmin@vmware.com uspto@dockettrak.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte FEI HUANG and DANIEL JAMES BEVERIDGE Appeal 2020-000612 Application 15/178,324 Technology Center 2100 Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, MICHAEL J. ENGLE, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20, which are all of the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies VMware, Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-000612 Application 15/178,324 2 TECHNOLOGY The application relates to “application virtualization” and “searching a look-aside cache” for a requested file. Spec. ¶ 3. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with certain limitations at issue emphasized: 1. A computing system for conserving space for application virtualization, the computing system comprising: a database that maps associations between a plurality of applications and their respective files on a host, the plurality of applications including a first application and a second application; and an application virtualization engine that: receives a notification that an application installation event of the first application on the host is occurring; records files from the application installation event; indexes the recorded files in the database to map the associations; and subsequently, during an application installing event of the second application on the host: intercepts a request to install a file from the application installing event of the second application; searches the database for the file; upon determining that the file has been indexed in the database from the application installing event of the first application, adjusts a filter to make the file available to the second application while maintaining only one copy of the file on the host. Appeal 2020-000612 Application 15/178,324 3 REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following references as prior art: Name Reference Date Beretta US 2010/0313079 A1 Dec. 9, 2010 TeNgaio US 9,100,246 B1 Aug. 4, 2015 REJECTION ON APPEAL Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over TeNgaio and Beretta. Final Act. 4. Although the briefs in this appeal do not address it, we note that claims 1–20 also are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. Final Act. 3. Because we affirm the § 103 rejection, we need not address the § 112 rejection. However, in the event of further prosecution, Appellant and the Examiner may wish to address that claim 1 recites “an application installation event for the first application” and “an application installing event for the second application,” thereby potentially creating uncertainty about the antecedent basis for the later recitation of “the application installing event of the first application.” ISSUES 1. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of TeNgaio and Beretta teaches or suggests the claimed steps during an application installing event of the second application, as recited in claim 1? 2. Did the Examiner err in combining TeNgaio and Beretta because the Examiner’s combination relies on hindsight or would render either reference inoperable for its intended purpose? Appeal 2020-000612 Application 15/178,324 4 ANALYSIS Issue 1 Appellant argues that none of TeNgaio, Beretta, or their combination teaches the limitations in claim 1 of “during an application installing event of the second application on the host: intercepts a request to install a file from the application installing event of the second application” and “upon determining that the file has been indexed in the database from the application installing event of the first application, adjusts a filter to make the file available to the second application while maintaining only one copy of the file on the host.” Appeal Br. 12–15. According to Appellant, “TeNgaio is directed to handling access requests related to virtually installed software that is activated and . . . deactivated.” Appeal Br. 11. Thus, Appellant argues, “TeNgaio describes intercepting a request to access a particular file object or information from a memory location,” but not “intercepting a request to install a file from an application install event as provided in Claim 1.” Id. at 13. However, the Examiner correctly points out that TeNgaio discloses, “the term ‘virtualization’ refers to performance of one or more operations to virtually install software, including applications and data related to the software.” TeNgaio 3:22–36; Ans. 8–9. The Examiner further determines that TeNgaio discloses “importing a distributed application layer” as shown in Figure 7, which the Examiner equates with an application installing event. TeNgaio 19:47–64; Ans. 8–9. “Upon identifying an import request or notification in block 720, the process 700 determines whether items to be imported already exist . . . such that the import operation may merely activate . . . existing information . . . .” TeNgaio 19:59–64. Thus, contrary Appeal 2020-000612 Application 15/178,324 5 to Appellant’s arguments, TeNgaio discloses virtually installing software and checking if a file to be imported already exists. According to Appellant, “Beretta is directed to building a compiled code for a compilation request received from an application.” Appeal Br. 12. Thus, Appellant argues, “Beretta is directed to using a single copy of data based on a compilation request and not an installing event.” Id. at 13. However, the Examiner determines that “compiling” and “linking” are “all example[s] of [an] installation event.” Ans. 15. We further note that the Examiner also relies on TeNgaio for teaching or suggesting installation events, as discussed above. Issue 2 Appellant also argues that “the combination would render both TeNgaio and Beretta inoperable for their intended purpose as these are totally different processes that cannot be combined.” Appeal Br. 15. This is not persuasive, however, because as discussed above the Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that compilation is one example of an installation event (e.g., Beretta’s compilation can occur during TeNgaio’s installation). Appellant further argues that “the Examiner is improperly picking and choosing various elements from Claim 1 by using improper hindsight, and ignoring how the elements in Claim 1 actually interact,” specifically “the correlation between maintaining only one copy of the file on the host and determining that the file has been indexed in the database from the application installing event of the first application.” Appeal Br. 16; see also Reply Br. 4. Appeal 2020-000612 Application 15/178,324 6 We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments against the combination of TeNgaio and Beretta. The Examiner provides reasoning for the combination, including that both TeNgaio and Beretta are motivated to reduce memory usage. Ans. 19. This reasoning is supported by the references themselves, which discuss the problems of conventional approaches including excessive memory usage and not sharing. E.g., Beretta ¶¶ 3–4; TeNgaio 1:43–61. Appellant’s conclusory assertions of hindsight fail to address sufficiently the reasoning set forth by the Examiner. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and claims 2–20, which Appellant argues are patentable for similar reasons. See Appeal Br. 17; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). OUTCOME The following table summarizes the outcome of the rejection: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–20 103(a) TeNgaio, Beretta 1–20 TIME TO RESPOND No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.36(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation